French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights • Hacker News Board

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#221

Post by lumost » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

lovasoa wrote: post #217

varajelle wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_avia... > in 2018, CO2 emissions averaged 88 grams of CO2 per revenue passenger per km. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran... > In Europe, the European Commission enforced that from 2015 all new cars registered shall not emit more than an average of 0.130 kg of CO2 per kilometre (kg CO2/km). The target is that by 2021 the average emissi…

I think you are comparing unrelated things. The average car ride is thousands of times shorter than the average flight, and transports more than one person. You cannot just compare the average emissions of cars and planes and make the conclusion that it makes sense to choose a plane over a car to reduce your carbon footprint. And even when you make this comparison with sensible data, the car still wins: https://ourwo…

when comparing driving to flying between destinations, it's highly likely that the flight will have a shorter duration.

The big wrinkle in this comparison is that planes burn most of their energy in the ascent to cruising speed/altitude. Energy consumption per mile is likely to be much higher on a short hop flight where cruising altitude is never reached than a 12 hour transoceanic flight.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#222

Post by go_blue_13 » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

fredophile wrote: post #203

wirrbel wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway Snow isn't an obstacle to trains (unless you don't want trains to be a reality).

The trans siberian railway isn't high speed. There are plans to make some of it high speed but the only article I could find was from 2018 and at that time it was still only in the early planning stages and expected to cost billions of USD [0]. [0] https://www.railway-technology.com/features/moscow-kazan-hig... . (Edited to fix an autocorrect correction from my phone)

>trans siberian railway

>edmonton to calgary

I think think there's a slight difference between the things we're comparing

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#223

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #145

EDIT: Thanks to commenters below, looks like my concerns aren't valid after all -- CDG has a train station and airlines there sell air tickets with a train connection. I didn't know about either of those -- seems like France has this figured out in a way other places haven't. (original comment below) --- I can appreciate the logic behind a ban on this for single-hop trips . But if you're flying into a hub and want to…

> I'll have to fly into Paris and add 3 hours to my already-long trip and make a totally separate train booking, and worry about if lose the train ticket if the flight is delayed?

I don't know if you're American, but I think you've just got funny ideas about how trains work. You don't really need an advance booking - you just turn up, buy a ticket, and take the train. It's not a big deal - they go every hour or so between major locations so you don't have to wait long. Trains are more like busses than aeroplanes in most places - Amtrak is an outlier in trying to be like an airline.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#224

Post by flavius29663 » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #134

wut42 wrote: post #104

While the reason is honorable, I can't help but think this is an attack on poor/middle class people. Traveling by train in France is quite expensive, and very annoying some times (I live in a lost country-side, and if I want to travel to my parents, it's a three to four train ride, taking about 8 to 10 hours). Ok, plane wouldn't help in most cases either, but the train offering got a lot gutted over the years and it'…

I never really bought this argument. Poor people aren't taking regular flights or driving SUV's. Climate change is a problem caused by the consumption habits of the wealthy, not the poor.

Flights can be quite cheap in Europe if you can take a low cost airline: ryanair, wizzair etc.

They won't connect every city, and connection flights are a no-no, but direct point to point flights are cheaper than anything else. Cheap flights across Europe is what allows a lot of low wage migrants to find seasonal work, students and young workers to travel and visit the cities etc.

The rich fly in expensive airlines, not with ryanair. Check this out: Paris to Bratislava, round trip for 80 bucks https://www.ryanair.com/us/en/trip/flights/select?adults=1&t...

Paris to Bratislava by train is 100 bucks one way (also taking much longer) https://www.raileurope.com/en-us/destinations/paris-bratisla...

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#225

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

lumost wrote: post #221

lovasoa wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are comparing unrelated things. The average car ride is thousands of times shorter than the average flight, and transports more than one person. You cannot just compare the average emissions of cars and planes and make the conclusion that it makes sense to choose a plane over a car to reduce your carbon footprint. And even when you make this comparison with sensible data, the car still wins: https://ourwo…

when comparing driving to flying between destinations, it's highly likely that the flight will have a shorter duration. The big wrinkle in this comparison is that planes burn most of their energy in the ascent to cruising speed/altitude. Energy consumption per mile is likely to be much higher on a short hop flight where cruising altitude is never reached than a 12 hour transoceanic flight.

On the other hand short-haul flights don't climb to as high of altitudes. They only climb about 2/3rds as high. But then again the air is thicker so cruising is less efficient. Oh gosh, for want of data.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#226

Post by refurb » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #177

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to regularly travel from Edmonton to Calgary for work. When you add up the extra time required for flying, it's about a three hour trip (45 minutes in the air, the rest is getting to the airport, checking in, etc). Coincidentally, it's also about a three hour drive. My reasons for driving vs flying were usually to do with how long I'd be there. If I was going for one day then flying was preferable since fallin…

Incidentally I think Calgary and Edmonton would be an ideal pair of cities to have some kind of high speed rail between. Would be a great alternative to air travel.

It’s been discussed but always seemed questionable to me. That corridor has I can’t see building a high speed rail would be worth it for the volume of people going back and forth.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#227

Post by go_blue_13 » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #46

underdeserver wrote: post #12

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it have been better to tax the carbon emissions? If you could offset the carbon emissions for 10 EUR, maybe add 12 EUR to the price of a ticket and use that money to buy carbon offsets? That way those who still want it can still fly, and we're at net negative emissions.

Carbon offsets are not a structural solution though. Most offsets right now reduce emissions elsewhere, where it's either cheaper or technologically more feasible. However, eventually we'll run out of those, and offsets will actually need to capture carbon from the atmosphere. Since there's no feasible synthetic carbon sequestration process invented yet, practically that means you have to increase biomass, and ensure…

You're missing the point of the offset market: as we exhaust the low hanging fruit of planting forests, and carbon becomes more and more expensive to offset, increasingly complex and expensive carbon capture schemes become feasible

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#228

Post by refurb » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

wirrbel wrote: post #187

fredophile wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree in terms of distance and traffic between the two cities. However, the long, relatively severe winters would probably add some complications to high speed rail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway Snow isn't an obstacle to trains (unless you don't want trains to be a reality).

It certainly makes things more difficult. You need to clear tracks, build shelters where there is avalanche risk.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#229

Post by hadlock » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #213

JBorrow wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large proportion of the carbon emissions from flights come from takeoff (you have to haul the plane, full of fuel, up through the gravitational potential)

I was more asking in the context of the French carbon production, not just the airlines

Most of France is Nuclear powered, and they haven't outlawed breeder reactors (which recycles spent fuel) for regan-esque cold war reasons, so with electric cars on the horizon soon and electric trains now, they're well positioned to Nope right out of the global fossil fuel race/struggle.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#230

Post by Mister_Snuggles » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

Teever wrote: post #209

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to regularly travel from Edmonton to Calgary for work. When you add up the extra time required for flying, it's about a three hour trip (45 minutes in the air, the rest is getting to the airport, checking in, etc). Coincidentally, it's also about a three hour drive. My reasons for driving vs flying were usually to do with how long I'd be there. If I was going for one day then flying was preferable since fallin…

The Red Arrow bus line from Edmonton to Calgary is the best of both worlds. Pick-up/Drop-offs from city core to city core as well as other stops along the way, Free wifi and beverages on the bus, decent seats for working during the stress free commute.

I only travelled on Red Arrow once, but not for work, and it was really nice. I can't recall why I never used it for work though.